Posted by Pangea (184.108.40.206) on May 11, 2004 at 13:33:27:
In Reply to: Pangea, Creationism Cont. posted by Frosty on May 11, 2004 at 11:20:32:
Perhaps from your perspective I do misuse the word "literal." However, I have been told by creationists on this forum and in person that Genesis needs to be interpreted as a scientifically as well as a theologically literal truth. I also tend to use the word "figurative" when describing a theistic view of Genesis that incorporates the ToE as a legitimate scientific proposition.
You apparently have not read many posts over the years by the long-time creationist defender on this forum, AAA.
So are we coming to a tacit agreement here that Genesis should be properly interpreted as a literal, spiritual truth but not NECESSARILY as a literal scientific truth?
If so, then we have reached agreement. Having been raised as a Catholic, I was exposed to the evolution -v- Genesis debate very early on. I went to a very high-end Jesuit college preparatory where many of our scholastics and priests had masters and PhD degrees in areas outside of theology. We discussed the ToE both in theology class and in science class. Although the entire church was not "officially" on-board at the time I was in school, by the early 1970s they certainly came "officially" to the same conclusion as most (not all) of my teachers that evolution was not at variance with the spiritual intentions of the author of Genesis.
I would contend that Roman Catholics, Methodists, and others who believe both in the evidence that supports the ToE and the evidence that supports a spiritual interpretation of the Bible deserve consideration as true Christians. Would you agree?
Post a Followup